Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

Super Bowl ad controversies have become nearly as interesting as the commercials that get on the air, maybe more so, and that's surely the case with the latest spot rejected by Fox Sports: A 30-second ad aimed at getting viewers to check out the familiar gospel verse, John 3:16.

So far this year, Fox has nixed commercials over issues of bad taste and inappropriate content -- which is a pretty high bar, given the popularity of frat boy humor and double entendres in Super Bowl ads, or the single-entendre spots that focus the attention so intently on sexy women that viewers don't actually know what the sponsor does. (Quick, what does GoDaddy.com sell?)

Still, thanks to Fox's guidelines, viewers of this Sunday's Super Bowl matchup between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers won't see an ad for an online dating service aimed at spouses looking to have affairs. Or the dueling bobbleheads spot from the conservative comedy site JesusHatesObama.com, in which an angry Jesus doll pushes a smiling Obama doll into a fish bowl. And Fox also put the kibosh on an entry into the annual Pepsi-and-Doritos ad competition that envisioned the snack chip and soft drink as the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Not!

So Larry Taunton, head of the Fixed Point Foundation, an Alabama-based organization that seeks to defend Christianity in the public square, figured he was on solid ground with his professionally produced commercial featuring a group of friends drinking beer, eating chips and watching football -- and asking each other what the phrase "John 3:16" written in a player's eye black means. That was it.

"We thought in this case, let's put forward something that is understated, that feels secular," Taunton said. Click play to watch video:

It was not to be. The Fox Broadcasting Company rejected the commercial, which would have brought in $3 million -- the going rate for a half-minute ad this year -- because under company policy, it "does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices."

"The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review," the company said in a statement. "Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected."

It's hard to argue with Fox's point about the spot's religious content. The verse is one in which Jesus tells his listeners, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If Fox execs hadn't understood the ad's religious message, then Taunton and Fixed Point would have to go back to the editing suite in order to produce something that would do what any good ad should -- communicate clearly. (The commercial cost Fixed Point just $50,000 to make, about a tenth of what such ads normally cost, and two Fox affiliates, one in Alabama and the Fox station in Washington -- of all places -- said they'll air it during the Super Bowl. Taunton said that if Fox had OK'd the ad for national distribution, he felt sure he could have raised the money to cover the $3 million broadcast fee.)

Of course, as always happens when an ad is rejected, the media coverage generated by the controversy is probably more effective P.R. than anything money could buy.

Taunton was also quick to exonerate Fox Broadcasting from blame for its decision.

"They were very courteous and gracious," Taunton stressed. "Fox Sports isn't the enemy. We aren't out to demonize them. We think this is more of a cultural issue than it is a Fox Sports issue. Their solution was just to run from it because they think this is something that would offend their viewership. I think we have become so utterly sensitive and politically correct that the result is we end up doing absurd things like this."

A more likely explanation is that Fox, like all broadcasters, doesn't want too much controversy, or rather the wrong kind of controversy -- think of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" from the 2004 Super Bowl. CBS, which broadcast last year's Super Bowl, found itself on the defensive for reversing its policy against advocacy ads and allowing a pro-life spot by Heisman-winning quarterback and born-again Christian Tim Tebow -- though the commercial wound up being so subtle it's hard to know if anyone got the anti-abortion message.

Moreover, in the case of the Fixed Point Foundation's ad, it's hard to see how a commercial whose only religious reference is a brief shot of a player's eye black and "John 3:16" could offend an audience of sports fans.

Evangelical Christians who consider the verse a kind of motto for their faith have been holding up signs displaying the verse at televised sporting events for years, starting in the 1970s with the "Rainbow Man," a.k.a. Rollen Stewart, who wore a distinctive, multi-hued afro wig to draw attention to his placard.

Taunton acknowledged that John 3:16 is by now part of the scenery in sports, and especially football, which has a reputation as a culturally conservative sport. There are on-field prayer circles after games, players thanking Jesus after every score, and big-time, publicly professing Christians like Kurt Warner, Drew Brees and Sam Bradford are commonplace.

But Taunton believes the John 3:16-themed ad was needed for that very reason.

"Our thought was this: We're not trying to import Christianity into a sport or into part of the culture where it isn't," he said. "We're trying to draw people's attention to the fact that it's already there . . . John 3:16 has become so ubiquitous in the game that people sort of become numb to it."

"It's sort of like seeing the Nike swoosh," he added. "How many people know what that means?" (Good question. Answer: it apparently represents the wing of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory. But that's not the kind of religious reference to get Michael Jordan ads barred from the airwaves.)

Taunton also noted that commercials airing during NFL games for the new exorcism movie, "The Rite," are loaded with religious imagery, though the intent seems to scare rather than convert viewers.

Indeed, it is religion itself, with its potential to incite furious reactions and its association with political divisions, that really seems to give broadcasters a fright.

Taunton agrees, which is why he said the ad was apolitical by design and "not in your face" with the faith message.

The ad's rejection, he said, sends the message that "religion, and more specifically Christianity, is increasingly being treated like smoking -- you can only do it in designated areas. You may not bring it into the public space."

As a sports fan, Taunton said he'd be happy to have some serious competition for the best religion-themed Super Bowl ad. It would beat another overrated Doritos spot or even race car driver Danica Patrick baring skin for a GoDaddy commercial.

"If the Hindus want to put out an ad, I'm all for it," Taunton said. "Muslims? Bring it on. I'd love to see it. It'd make the Super Bowl a whole lot more interesting."

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Religion should have NO place in any public activity, because the christianproselitizing has muscled it's way into everything, from the military, to thepublic schools, organized sports, to Congress. Christians are etremists in shoving their religion (it's not faith) down everybody's throat. If you protest that bad behavior, you are accused of "violating their religious rights." Doesanyone doubt that hell that would break out of someone prayed to Allah out loudat a PTA Meeting, in Congressional "prayer breakfasts" of after every touchdownin a Super Bowl game? Public expression of any religious belief is an assaulton all religions, and anyone who choses not to believe religious myths. Get it?

Once again Fox shows its true colors. FOX violates the 1st Amendment & commits censorship! Proof once again they are totally biased and have a specific agenda. Everyday FOX News censors and violates the 1st Amendment. FOX should immediately lose its FCC license

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The 1st Amendment speaks to government interference in speech and religion. Fox is private enterprise. They can allow or not as they see fit. I do wonder if they would have turned down the ad if they did not have more advertisers than they could use.

Fox is licensed by the FCC, without the license Fox can not broadcast, thus Fox must follow the rules and regulations imposed by the FCC which includes the 1st Amendment of course, HENCE, it is a 1st Amendment issue , and FOX is violating the 1st Amendment and the FCC should pull their license and stop Fox from broadcasting immediately.

What happen to religion being a private matter,(OR IS IT FOR SALE)I have the rightnot to have their views forced on me. When watching sports or an other media religon should be left out, thats what channels for religion is all about. I had enough religon battering as a child. between Catholic and Methodist doctrine, at this point of my life I am for spiritual connection, as God is everywhere, most religion is organized hatered of other faiths. Don't even bother to make a comment on my view, that will only proves shows hatred, why do you think so many countries have cultures that kill one another through civil war example (Ireland).

Religion is a Constitutionally protected right, with everyone having the freedom to engage in it. People have the right to freedom OF religion, NOT freedom from it. In order to enforce your desire to not see someone else engaging in it - the government would have to specifically stop the other person from practicing their belief. That is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. You have the right to refrain from religious beliefs if you want, but you cannot stand in someone else's way of practicing theirs.

Just to add a point, though: Almost all the wars ever fought were disputes involving political, economic and social strife, as well as disagreements over the ownership of natural resources. You can also add wars to expand territory over said resources, such as the Greek and Roman empires. Very, very few all out wars have ever involved religious differences, the largest being the expansion of the Muslim territories that overlapped with Christian lands. Case in point: Most of the innocent lives lost in the 20th century alone have been at the hands of Communists, Socialists and dictatorial thugs. The closest you will find to religion being involved was the Final Solution imposed by the Nazis against the Jews, and even that was born out of a political motivation mixed with a belief in ethnic cleansing.

nce again Fox shows its true colors. fox violates the 1st Amendment & commits censorship! Proof once again they are totally biased and have a specific agenda. Everyday FOX News censors and violates the 1st Amendment. FOX should immediately lose its FCC license